The willful blindness of those who will not see

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Iran holds all the records for sponsoring, harboring, fostering, and launching terrorism. It tops the State
Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism, and it richly deserves its gold medal. When the Ayatollah
Khomeini toppled the shah in 1979, he already had a terrorist organization in place: the Revolutionary
Guards, who had been trained by the Middle East's master terrorist, Yasser Arafat. From that solid base,
Iranian-sponsored terrorism metastasized, and now includes most all the leading elements of the terrorist
galaxy, from Islamic Jihad to Hamas, al Qaeda, and, of course, Hezbollah, the worst of them all, and a direct
creation of the Iranian regime itself.

There is no dispute over Iran's preeminent role, even among those experts who shrink from its
consequences. Yet Western governments, even the Bush administration, have steadfastly refused to do the
one thing that the facts demand: design and conduct a policy to help the Iranian people fulfill their desire for
freedom, and bring down the murderous regime in Tehran. Unlike the war against Iraq, it doesn't require
bombs or bullets, only the usual kind of financial and moral support we have given to so many freedom
fighters in the past.

No one even wants to think about it. Indeed, the European Union has been busily trying to normalize trade
relations with Iran, and its "foreign minister," Chris Patten, recently made warm gurgly sounds after meeting
with Iranian parliamentarians who regaled him with stories of good government in the Islamic Republic. Or so
he thought; in reality he was talking to imposters pretending to be elected deputies, and they had a god laugh
afterwards at the gullibility of their celebrated interlocutor.

The United States is not free of similar impulses to appease the mullahs, and the Department of State is, of
course, the headquarters for those who want to have better relations with our prime terrorist enemies. Were
it not for President Bush's clear-eyed understanding of the true nature of the Tehran regime, we would no
doubt have arranged a détente, in keeping with the vision of Policy Planning Director Richard Haass, who
considers appeasing Iran and working out a deal with its tyrants an "historic opportunity." Not even the
president's repeated denunciations of the Iranian regime have convinced Haass and such cohorts as Deputy
Secretary Richard Armitage, who last Friday inexplicably proclaimed Iran a "democracy." Somebody ought
to make him memorize the words of the (appointed) Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, less than
two weeks ago: "Today, those [in Iran] who spread slogans such as reform, liberty, democracy [and] human
rights ... are fighting religion." Khamenei termed such ideas "demonic and colonialist."

That a famously tough-minded man like Armitage would buy into the fantastic notion that the Iranian clerical
fascist dictatorship is somehow democratic is a breathtaking example of Western leaders' search for reasons
to avoid coming to grips with Iran, even though they know they should do everything possible to liberate it.
The most common excuse they give for their inaction is their belief that Iran will take care of itself, that the
Iranian people - whose contempt for the regime is manifest - will eventually rise up and overthrow the
mullahcracy. It's their country, after all, so why should we take the political risks involved?

It's a legitimate question, to which the proper response is another question: Why are the Iranian people less
worthy of our support than the Yugoslavs under Milosevic or the Philipinoes under Marcos's two rotten
regimes that did not threaten our national security, were not racing hell-bent to develop weapons of mass
destruction, and did not harbor Osama bin Laden, his family, and his followers?

The current paralysis is eerily similar to the one that gripped Jimmy Carter's administration in 1979, as the fall
of the shah became ever more likely. Then, too, it seemed imperative for us to act. Then, as today, the
actions required were political, not military: We should have encouraged the shah to fight for his throne.
Instead, we wrapped ourselves in the mantle of political correctness, warned him about the use of violence,
insisted that his troops use rubber bullets, demanded that he permit freedom of assembly, and mumbled
reassuring words about the Ayatollah Khomeini. Andrew Young remarked that he was, after all, "a religious
man."

Then, as today, we told ourselves that it was their country, not ours, that the shah was fully capable of acting,
and that he undoubtedly would. Why should we take the political risks involved in vigorously supporting him?
In one of those fascinating historical moments when two sides are looking into opposite sides of the same
distorted mirror, the shah reasoned that Iran was a major American concern, that if we wished to save him
we certainly would, and if we wished him to leave he could not possibly resist. Why should he get his hands
dirty by fighting the mobs in the streets? He was overthrown, we suffered a monumental setback, radical
jihadism took root, and the Iranian people began 24 years of misery.

No doubt there are some events that occur because great historical forces have been unleashed, and men are
powerless to reverse the tide. But these are very rare. For the most part, things happen because leaders and
other brave people make them happen. The frightening facts about Iran, the odious nature of its regime, and
the brave resistance of the Iranian people all cry out for Western action. While it is possible that the Iranians
may eventually rid themselves of their oppressive clerics, it is also possible that the regime will prevail.
Repression works, tyrannies endure, and a regime that is willing to kill anyone who challenges it - and the
mullahs have not shown any unwillingness to kill, torture, and intimidate - can last a very long time. But both
the Iranian people and the mullahs believe that American action would change the balance of power, and
liberate the country.

The liberation of Iran would be the greatest imaginable triumph in the war against terrorism, as well as the
fulfillment of America's mission to support freedom fighters against their tyrants. As in the war against Iraq,
we have already waited far too long to get on with it.

Faster, please!

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

02/12/03: The Europeans Know More Than They Now Pretend? They choose to dawdle and obstruct02/03/03: Monumental failure: Nelson Mandela had promise01/30/03: Elevation: The president knows what it's all about01/29/03: No Leader: France's Chirac is all about personal interest01/28/03: The Axis of Evil Redux: Same place, a year later01/27/03: The Return of the Ayatollah: Washington could afford a little more attention on Iran01/13/03: How we could lose01/09/03: Fish are Better than Women: Gauging U.S. priorities01/07/03: The Shape of Things to Come: The terror masters are now waiting for us12/20/02: A Prophecy for the New Year --- Faster, please!12/16/02: Scud Surrender: The "W" factor12/13/02: The Heart of Darkness: The mullahs make terror possible12/12/02: The Real War12/09/02: Tom Friedman's Reformation: His Iran11/26/02: How Tyrannies Fall: Opportunity time in Iran11/22/02: The Blind Leading the Blind: The New York Times and the Iranian crisis11/13/02: The Temperature Rises: We should liberate Iran first --- now 11/05/02: End of the Road: Iran's Mohammed Khatami, on his way out10/29/02: The Angleton Dialogues, Contnued: What George Tenet doesn’t know10/24/02: The Iranian Comedy Hour: In the U.S., the silence continues10/16/02: Sniper, Saboteur, or Sleeper? Channeling James Jesus Angleton10/01/02: The real foe09/27/02: The Iranian String Quartet: The mullahs get increasingly nervous09/25/02: The Dubya Doctrine09/23/02: Intelligence? What intelligence?09/12/02: America's revenge: To turn tyrannies into democracies 09/10/02: Iran & Afghanistan & Us: We'll have to deal with the mullahcracy, sooner or later09/04/02: Iran, according to the Times: All the nonsense that's fit to print08/21/02: Life and death of Abu Nidal tells us a great deal about our enemies08/08/02: Can You Keep a Secret?: The media silence on Iran08/06/02: Fantasy Reporting: The latest disinformation from the Washington Post08/02/02: Propping Up the Terror Masters: Europe's Solana on tour07/16/02: Bush vs. the Mullahs: Getting on the side of the Iranian freedom fighters07/12/02: The State Department Goes Mute: It's official: State has no message07/09/02: History being made, but the West appears clueless06/05/02: Is George Tenet endangering peace in Israel?06/03/02: Ridiculous, even for a journalist05/20/02: So how come nobody's been fired yet?05/14/02: Open doors for thugs04/20/02: Iran on the Brink … and the U.S. does nothing 04/16/02: Its the war, stupid … someone remind Colin Powell 04/08/02: Gulled: In the Middle East, Arafat doesn't matter04/02/02: Faster, Please: The war falters03/26/02: The Revolution Continues: What's brewing in Iran03/18/02: Iran simmers still: Where's the press?03/05/02: We can't lose any more ground in Iran 02/14/02: The Great Iranian Hoax02/12/02: Unnoticed Bombshell: Key information in a new book01/31/02: The truth behind the Powell play01/29/02: My past with "Johnny Jihad's" lawyer 01/21/02: It's Munich, all over again01/08/02: What's the Holdup?: It's time for the next battles in the war against terrorism 12/11/01: We must be imperious, ruthless, and relentless12/06/01: Remembering my family friend, Walt Disney11/28/01: The Barbara Olson Bomb: Understanding the war11/13/01: How We're Doing: The Angleton Files, IV11/06/01: A great revolutionary war is coming10/25/01: How to talk to a terrorist10/23/01: Creative Reporting: Learning to appreciate press briefings10/19/01: Not the Emmys: A Beltway award presentation10/15/01: Rediscovering American character10/11/01: Somehow, I've missed Arafat's praise of the first stage of our war on terrorism10/04/01: What do we not know?09/28/01: Machiavelli On Our War: Some advice for our leaders09/25/01: No Room for the U.N.: Keeping Annan & co. out of the picture09/21/01: Creative destruction09/14/01: Who Killed Barbara Olson?08/22/01: How Israel will win this war 08/15/01: Bracing for war 08/09/01: More Dithering Democrats08/02/01: Delirious Dems07/31/01: Consulting a legendary counterspy about Chandra and Condit, cont'd07/19/01: Be careful what you wish for 07/17/01: Consulting a legendary counterspy about Chandra and Condit 07/05/01: Let Slobo Go 05/30/01: Anybody out there afraid of the Republicans?05/09/01: The bad guys to the rescue 05/07/01: Bye-bye, Blumenthal 04/20/01: Handling China04/11/01: EXAM TIME!04/05/01: Chinese over-water torture03/27/01: Fighting AIDS in Africa is a losing proposition03/14/01: Big Bird, Oscar, and other threats03/09/01: Time for a good, old-fashioned purge03/06/01: Powell’s great (mis)adventure02/26/01: The Clinton Sopranos02/20/01: Unity Schmoonity: Sharon is defying the will of the people01/30/01: The Rest of the Rich Story01/22/01: Ashcroft the Jew01/11/01: A fitting close to the Clinton years12/26/00: Continuing Clinton's shameful legacy12/21/00: Clinton’s gift for Bush